ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Evidence Against Evolution

What evidence against evolution exists? My son's science book teaches evolution and I need some good evidence against evolution.

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---Heidi on 4/11/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (10)

Reply to this BlogPost a New Blog

It is a lie that aircraft fly, since we know that some who were involved in the creation of them were not Christians
---alan_of_UK on 12/27/07

I would agree with Christiane that God's Word is the greatest argument against evolution for those not indoctrinated into unreality.

However for those who are 'willingly ignorant' the greatest argument against evolution is the absloute absence of proof that microbe to man evolution ever occurred.

Beyond the hype & rhetoric it is a bare cupboard as not one proponent of evolution has ever been able to come up with a testable-repeatable-observable experiment which verifies it.
---Warwick on 12/20/07

The best evidence in this world. We know God can not LIE. "In the beginning God CREATED the heavens and the earth." Genesis 1-1. Please believe this. For your sake.
---catherine on 12/20/07

Heidi, since Creationism is a sham developed by incompetent individuals who don't know how to interpret Genesis what do you propose to teach your son as an alternative.

Get you God out of the little box and quit using you head as a proctoscope.
---notlaw99 on 12/20/07

Darwin did indeed support missionary societies, because he saw the good that Christianity can do. He was also concerned about the logical outcomes of evolutionary theory when applied to society (which Hitler in fact did -- google From Darwin to Hitler by Richard Weikart). But he was in no way a supporter of Christian doctrine.
---Ktisophilos on 5/9/07

MikeM: who opposes natural selection? Not any creationist I know. After all, creationists like Edward Blyth thought of it before Darwin. So desist from dishonest straw man arguments.

Darwin's grandfather was an evolutionist, his father an unbeliever, and his wife came from a prominent unitarian family. Warwick is right that the deathbed conversion story should be laid to rest.
---Ktisophilos on 5/9/07

'The Origin of Species,' "The universe is so full of wonder it could not have occurred by Chance."

"In Downe, Kent, Darwin was a pillar of the church supporting it by good works and generosity from the outside"->

"All Darwins life he supported the evangelical South American Missionary Society."

"The lady hope deathbed conversion story is a complete myth."- Jim Moore
---MikeM on 5/9/07

"Darwin was baptized into the Anglican faith, bounced between agnostic theism and theism"-Gerold Billings

Darwins faith or lack of it is of litle merit, or consequence. Thomas Jefferson was clearly less a Christian than Mr. Darwin, so do we reject our present form of goverment based on that fact? I do not see the point, it is, in the final analysis a non-sequitor.
---MikeM on 5/9/07

MikeM there is absolutely no evidence that Darwin regained his Christian faith-if in fact he ever had any. The verifyable facts are that he went to his death writing anti-Biblical letters. The story of his reconversion is an urban myth, based upon a supposed 'Lady Hope' letter, the details of which were rejected by his family. Stick to the verifyable facts Mike.

I did the research for an article on this.
---Warwick on 5/8/07

Darwin was a Christian, he went from religious, to agnostic, to refinding faith. Its a common cycle. Later in life he was baptized an Anglican. During his agnostic phase may have said "damnable doctrine,"-to put in context, context is everything, history 101. Thought I would clear that up. Some of us need refresher history lessons.
---MikeM on 5/8/07

As to mechanism, elsewhere I have 'gone in depth' on the subject, and was acused of being pedantic. As expected, all threw in the towel. In the final analysis those who oppose natural selection do so on viseral grounds only. I also note the coined term 'evolutionist' means all scientist, no matter the disiplne, except the .1 pec cent who are far right fundamentalist.
---MikeM on 5/8/07

Catherine: Good points! Even if DNA were to "magically" appear by random chance, it would be totally useless without a code-decyphering mechanism and protein-assembling mechanisms also appearing at the same time and in the same place. What are the chances of that?
---jerry6593 on 5/7/07

Heidi: There are literally thousands of solid, scientific proofs against the pseudoscience of Darwinian Evolution, and not one empirical piece of evidence in support of it. I suggest that you search for "Evolution-Facts" on the net and order the book "The Evolution Cruncher." If your son gets his hands on this book, he will instantly be better informed than his teacher or the textbook author on the scientific veracity (or lack thereof) of Evolution.
---jerry6593 on 5/6/07

There is true and false science. True science and common sense, refute the fallacy that "something" can explode out of nothing and organize itself into an intricate, law abiding universe. Theories come and theories go. Numerious scientists now agree that the "big bang" did not, and could not, occur.---A note of interest--I think. The chance that useful DNA molecules would develop without a designer are zero.
---catherine on 5/5/07

Despite MikeMocker's claim, Darwin was no Christian, and called Christianity a "damnable doctrine" and said that the Bible was no more trustworthy than the sacred books of the Hindoos (sic). Even his anti-evolutionary wife came from a family of Unitarian heretics.
---Ktisophilos on 4/19/07

Ashley, those phenomena like metamorphosis are NOT evolution. Rather, the information for the transformation is *pre-programmed*, and it is astounding information. The caterpillar's tissues dissolve, leaving only imaginal disks, and totally reform into the butterfly.

Evolution allegedly is supposed to explain how this amazing programming *arose in the first place*. But they have no plausible scheme explaining this by random mutation and natural selection?
---Ktisophilos on 4/17/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Advertising

Seriously though, Mike, I still care about you and this topic very much, there's just not much I can add to what people like Ashley, Jerry, Warwick, Ktisophilos, and a few others are saying; they are all much more knowledgeable than me. Love and blessings to all of you.
---tracy3346 on 4/17/07

"Tracy, on the other thread, did you bail on me?'
No, dis ignernt fundamentalist is a tuff one t git rid of- jest bin bizy.
---tracy3346 on 4/16/07

I have an earned doctorate in a "hard science", and there is absolutely nothing in real science that refutes creation in six normal-length days about 6000 years ago.

Hugh Ross was thoroughly demolished by the book Refuting Compromise, from Creation Ministries International. Talkorigins is an essentially antitheistic site.
---Ktisophilos on 4/16/07

Evolving to sustain life in some areas of the world does exist and cannot be disputed. for example, caterpillars to butterflies. snakes adapting to their environment and becoming sea snakes. animals losing their legs over time to adapt to their surroundings. acquiring acute night vision for hunting prey. people that lose one sense like sight develop an advanced hearing and sense of touch, etc. evolution in that sense is real. satan often uses lies mingled with truth to deceive many.
---ashley on 4/16/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Eating Disorders

Evolution, a religion to many, a faith held with vigor & ardour, tele-evangelists pale in comparison.

Truth on the other hand is held with conviction, explained with patience & calmness. Jesus compels none,'Tenderley sweetly Jesus is calling, calling for you & for me.' But the evolutionary religionist angrily ridicules those who dare disagree with his cobbled together man-created fable. A reptile became a bird? I'd like to see that. It's a paper wall raised against God's Truth.
---Warwick on 4/16/07

Take an air-tight container and remove all the air from inside of it. Create a vacuum within it - absent of all matter and energy. Then you really have nothing inside your container. How long will it take for a small version of the "big bang" to occur inside of the container ? It would never happen.
---Dan on 4/15/07

2 Peter 3:8 says "But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day." So, when the universe was created in 6 of God's days, it could have been thousands of our years, and might have looked like evolution.
---Dan on 4/15/07

Genesis 1:1 says plainly,'In the beginning God created the heavens AND the earth';
How can Something arise from Nothing? We must understand all things arose from Creation,a "maker". Science disproves the Bible,because it is Man-made idealism, not God's ways or Truth.Like the question Which came first,the chicken or the egg?,that is Never ending becaue we always start with a "form" a creation. My Heart trusts the Holy Word of God.
---rosem4839 on 4/15/07

Send a Free Winter Ecard

Non-life evolving into life? I do not believe that for a second. For example I dont believe photosynthesis, ATP/ADP process 'commenced' from nothing, again, the ontology is leaves open the probibility of the Creator. I could go into that in detail. The Idyosyncratic fundametalist claims, however are outlandish, delusional-demanding absolute cognative dissonance. Their 'ideas' are, in the final analysis self-refuting.
---MikeM on 4/15/07

MikeM you're being disingenuous. You claim to be working in 'the hard sciences' if so you will know nothing is established as scientific fact until it passes the operational science standard- that is testability, repeatability & observability. Ideas such as non-life evolving into life, life evolving from microbe to man are claims untestable in the laboratory. They supposedly happened in the past & aren't happening today.

BTW I know many research scientists who support Biblical 6-day creation.
---Warwick on 4/14/07

MikeM you're a passionate defender of chemical(non life)to life, microbe to man evolution, a belief contrary to the clear meaning of the Bible. As the saying goes- 'there's no evolution in the Bible & no Bible in evolution.'

Leaving opinions & beliefs aside what one piece of evidence can you supply to support your belief- evidence which can withstand the rigorous testing of operational science i.e.observability, testabiliity, repeatability, in the lab? Straight question-straight answer MikeM!
---Warwick on 4/14/07

MikeM- You say natural selection explains eye evolution-you jest. Natural selection 'selects' those creatures which will survive. Others don't so genetic information is lost, not added. It doesn't produce unique new genetic information needed to produce the vision systems complexity- camera-vision transport - interpretation by a specially designed part of the brain. The eye isn't an item but a highly complex interconnected system which relies upon all the parts operating before sight occurs.
---Warwick on 4/14/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Travel Packages

greetings.True,MikeM.The saving truth is separate from the sciences.The saving truth is expressive of where mankind has the option to go in his future where as the sciences discussed here is where mankind has been.Jesus taught the saving truth where as the sciences are not included in his teachings.Jesus taught how man can avoid extinction not how his ancestors became extinct.
---earl on 4/14/07

It should be noted Answers in Genesis is religion, and has absolutly nothing to do with science. At best its a 'first grade' barb against real science. Through I am not protestant Dr.Hugh Ross an evangical is credible and rational with his Reasons to Believe. Talkorigens is an intelligent site with contributions from real scientist some religious, some not.
---MikeM on 4/14/07

1. The objection to evolution is viseral only. it is emotion vs. rationality.

2.It is only the fundamentalist that oppose evolution(science) It is a false dictonomy.

3. Evolution has nothing to do with, pro/con belief in God.

(Tracy, on the other thread, did you bail on me?)
---MikeM on 4/14/07

The blogs I see offer nothing but emotive responses, "It aint true 'cause it ain't true!" With such a tautology one is saying nothing. With such grand comments palentology, biology,micro-biology, geology, archeology, anthropology, chemistry, etc are all tossed out. Its like the man on the jury who says to the other 11, "dont confuse me with all them facts and evidence, my mind is made up, I will vote with just with my heart!"
---MikeM on 4/14/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Credit Repair

Again, not one professor I knew in college who taught any science was an atheist. By the way, Mr Darwin was a Christian.

My argument for God is wholly ontological, the science which fundamentalist completly dismiss is in reality an ontological arguement for creation.

The comment about the eye is a cosmologcal argument for Creation, in my opinion a well used, but weak one, as natural selection provides morphographic examples of change.
---MikeM on 4/14/07

A)***THE RCC BELIEF: But Pope Benedict, whose remarks were published on Wednesday(4/11) in Germany in the book "Schoepfung und Evolution" (Creation and Evolution), praised scientific progress and did not endorse creationist or "intelligent design" views about life's origins.
---JIM on 4/13/07

B)*****In the book, Benedict defended what is known as "theistic evolution," the view held by Roman Catholic, Orthodox and mainline Protestant churches that God created life through evolution and religion and science need not clash over this.
Do Catholics pick and choose what to believe in the Bible?
---JIM on 4/13/07

Here's a list of some things you can look up on the I-net that'll help...
Evolution: The Evidence For and Against
True Origin
Microevolution vs. Macroevolution
Answers in Genesis
---tracy3346 on 4/12/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Products

True science and biblical revelation exposes the theory of evolution for what it really is--a fantastic fallacy. science and common sense, refute the fallacy that "something" can explode out of nothing and organize itself into an intricate, law- abiding universe. Theories come and theories go. Numerous Scientists now agree that the "big bang" did not, and could not occur. The theory of Evolution will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future.
---catherine on 4/12/07

More on the falsehood of evolution.>>>Scientists who go about teaching that Evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining Evolution we do not have one ioda of fact. Is there a God or isn't there? The answers you arrive at will not only govern your current behavior, but also will determine whether you will ultimately be in the Kingdom of God or perish in a lake of fire.
---catherine on 4/12/07

A partially developed man and woman got together even though their partially developed eyes and ears couldn't see or hear. They were really skinny because both of them couldn't find enough food to eat. They used their partially developed reproductive systems to have a partailly developed baby. This happened millions of times before we finally got all our parts working. LOL. Maybe this will open his eyes.
---john on 4/12/07

Guess what evolution if lat out false.
God made every living thing.
1 Corinthians 15:39
ALL FLESH is NOT the SAME FLESH: but there is ONE KIND OF FLESH of MEN, another flesh of BEASTS, another of FISHES, and another of BIRDS. We did not evolve.
---doug7835 on 4/12/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce

Evolution??? First they are a sham..secondly, they dont even know how God hung the Moon, Sun and Stars etc in mid air. I bet they will come up with some outer space answer. Get your son out of that class and give Him the Word of God is my advise.
---jana on 4/12/07

You are right Jack all evidence is assessed in the light of theory. People think it's about facts when in reality 'facts' don't speak for themselves. A library is full of facts but silent.

However I beleive an assessment of the evidence points strongly to Biblical creation, as per Genesis. Sham? I don't think so.
---Warwick on 4/12/07

The bible. God made man. Man did not come from apes/monkeys. The science books are taking out the planet Pluto, when in fact God made the planet.
---Rebecca_D on 4/11/07

The Holy Scripture is evidence. The first page written: "In the beginning God created..."
---Eloy on 4/12/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage

Definitely the Holy Bible is the only evidence which could testify against the teaching of the evolution.

The existence of man is the greatest creation of our dear Creator.Thats one example that evolution is against the biblical doctrine.edna8476
---edna8476 on 4/12/07

Have his science teacher explain the evolution of an eyeball.
---Anne on 4/11/07

The biggest problem with evolution is that too many different things have to evolve at the same time.

The evidence both for and against evolution is identical. It just depends on how the evidence is interpreted.
---Jack on 4/11/07

The Word of God.
---betty8468 on 4/11/07

Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation

Copyright© 2017 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.